[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 53, Issue 5

[Owen DeLong]

On Nov 2, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:

> he.net's Owen DeLong wrote:
>> ... in IPv4, NAT is a necessary evil which is tolerated because
>> of the serious shortage of IPv4 addresses.
>
> That is the one of the opinions not supported by the facts.  You may  
> not
> have been around before NAT Owen, but those of us who were had no  
> problem
> getting address space.  We still assigned illegal addresses because  
> there
> was no business case for allowing internal networks to be publically
> routable.
>
I was around before NAT.  I was around well before NAT and I remember
when NAT first hit the streets.  I remember the networks with bogon
addresses and the nightmares they caused when they suddenly found
themselves trying to integrate with real networks that played by the
rules.  I don't expect it to be any different going forward with ULA or
any of the other private address and/or NAT proposals out there.

That doesn't make it any better of an idea now than it was then.

> But I do understand where you are coming from, a large ISP who will
> monitize its IPv4 address space in the event of an IPv4 shortage.
>
Uh, Say what?

1.	While I work for an organization that may be considered a large
	ISP, I can tell you that as an organization, we think that the
	address market is a bad idea.

2.	I was the ONLY vote on the ARIN AC in opposition to the
	transfer market policy.  How, exactly, does that put me in
	the perspective of monetizing my IPv4 space?

3.	NAT would actually make it easier for us to monetize our
	address space if that's what we wanted to do.

>> However, in IPv6, that shortage is not present and therefore,
>> NAT moves from being a necessary evil to an UNnecessary evil.
>
> Amazing how network engineers can insist that real world managers,  
> with
> real world issues, do not have a valid need for NAT.  I wonder if he.net 
> 's
> Board of Directors concurs?

I have no idea what HE.NET's board of directors thinks on the subject of
NAT.  I haven't asked them.  I am not speaking here for HE.NET, and,
the opinions expressed are the result of my 20+ years experience doing
networking ranging from small enterprise to major corporation and from
tiny ISP to major backbone provider.

There are lots of valid needs for private addressing or non-routed  
addresses.
There are lots of valid needs for filtration and stateful inspection  
firewalls.
There are even valid needs for the ability to support VIP-like  
functionality.

Not one of those things actually requires NAT.

Owen
Just my opinion, not necessarily agreed with by anyone.